England isn't looking too good....

[madogvelkor]

If it was possible I think it would be best to tweak the AI so that kings want to gain control over those counties that are part of their kingdom titles, and to make independent dukes want to conquer lands to claim unheld kingdom titles.

That way if a kingdom fragments, the Kings would try to reconquer or vassalize the lands that make up part of their kingdom. If there was no King (as happens in France at times) then one of the dukes would try to vassalize the others. As it is, the AI never tries to create to rebuild kingdoms as a human player would.

 

[unmerged(33525)]

I assume by that you mean Henry Tudor had a stronger claim to the English throne than Richard III? :wacko:

I think he meant that the candidate picked up to replace an unwanted king wer in most cases picked among the to ranking contender for the titles - not necessarily the heir to be, but usually someone who might inherit.

 

[unmerged(15918)]

If there was no King (as happens in France at times) then one of the dukes would try to vassalize the others. As it is, the AI never tries to create to rebuild kingdoms as a human player would.

From the begining of Francia occidentalis under Charles II to the revocation of Louis XVI th, in 1792, France always had a king. It sometimes had two kings, like in 100 years war when English king Henry VI was also made king of France.
Apart that, I think it is too hard obtaining two thirds of a kingdoms provinces to become king. There might be random events allowing a duke of the disappeared kingdom to proclame himself king, leading to a test. If test successful, his fellow dukes would recognize him as their king. Chances of success proclamation might be number of owned provinces divided by number of required provinces.
After all, none of the kingdoms existing in 1066 disappeared during game's period (except Norway becoming Danish ? i'm not sure.)

 

[unmerged(34070)]

From the begining of Francia occidentalis under Charles II to the revocation of Louis XVI th, in 1792, France always had a king. It sometimes had two kings, like in 100 years war when English king Henry VI was also made king of France.
Apart that, I think it is too hard obtaining two thirds of a kingdoms provinces to become king. There might be random events allowing a duke of the disappeared kingdom to proclame himself king, leading to a test. If test successful, his fellow dukes would recognize him as their king. Chances of success proclamation might be number of owned provinces divided by number of required provinces.
After all, none of the kingdoms existing in 1066 disappeared during game's period (except Norway becoming Danish ? i'm not sure.)

Diversion: In the beginning of the Kalmar Union it was more of a case of Denmark and Sweden getting a Norwegian king. (Though he later moved to Denmark, grumble,grumble )

I like the Idea of a duke taking over the kingship when a Kingdom is going down the drains, but it looks like it would be difficult to implement. Maybe it is possible to get an event where, if the king has too many vassals rebelling, the vassals will elect the most prestigious duke in the realm instead (or maybe the first or second candidate in the line of succession). Then the King looses his kingship title (but keeps a claim for it).

 

[Beauclerc]

Geez, its a bit too harsh to judge these Kings (John, EdwardII and Richard II) as Bad kings without fully considering their circumstances?

How do you know I haven't fully considered their circumstances? But without going into those circumstances... all three have a historical reputation as bad kings.

I assume by that you mean Henry Tudor had a stronger claim to the English throne than Richard III? :wacko:

Yes, I do. The War of the Roses - from which Henry benefitted, were over the correct line of succession in the first place. The Lancastrians didn't believe Richard III had a valid claim (or rather they refused to believe he did).

Although the point I was trying to make was in cases where the nobles rebelled against a king considered incompetent, the intention was never to replace the king with a man with no claim. Even powerful and popular leaders (like Warwick and Simon de Montfort) did not make a bid for the crown themselves.

 

[emhyr]

and there is are two new ahistorical kingdoms of Bohemia and Burgandy that show promise.

Hmm, why do you call kingdom of Bohemia ahistorical? IRL it already existed in times you are writing about and definitely was not weak... So why ahistorical?

Regarding topic of this thread: I did't play one game, which kingdom of germany survived with something more than 10 provinces yet. In most cases, it's the one which disintegrates most quickly... England and Scotland also aren't doing well most of time. However, Byzantines don't seem to have such problems, as usually they comfortable keep their original borders and manage to expand without internal turmoil. Maybe the idea of giving any king loyalty bonus (as only byzantine emperor has this bonus now) is the most simple and efficient solution for this problem...

 

[Casus Belli]

Regarding topic of this thread: I did't play one game, which kingdom of germany survived with something more than 10 provinces yet. In most cases, it's the one which disintegrates most quickly... England and Scotland also aren't doing well most of time. However, Byzantines don't seem to have such problems, as usually they comfortable keep their original borders and manage to expand without internal turmoil. Maybe the idea of giving any king loyalty bonus (as only byzantine emperor has this bonus now) is the most simple and efficient solution for this problem...

The Byzantine Empire stays (mostly) free of internal turmoil because it is has elective law, and the strongest prince in the realm takes over as emperor.

Unlike the various kinds of primogeniture used in most of western Europe, this prevents stupid, zero-stat'ed drooling inbreds from taking over the throne.

All sorts of rotten things can happen once the emperor is in office tho

 

[Havard]

The Byzantine Empire stays (mostly) free of internal turmoil because it is has elective law, and the strongest prince in the realm takes over as emperor.

Unlike the various kinds of primogeniture used in most of western Europe, this prevents stupid, zero-stat'ed drooling inbreds from taking over the throne.

All sorts of rotten things can happen once the emperor is in office tho

The Empire in my current game is Salic Gavelkind and still going strong

 

[Galleblære]

I know next to nothing about this, but historically, I don't think (all) Barons and Counts activly sought to achieve full independence from the Kingdom. Didn't they see the need for some sort of unity and common defense that IE the Kingdom of England gave?

So if the stupid inbred moron is kicked out, shouldnt there be some sort of motivation to re-create the Kingdom?

 

[Havard]

I know next to nothing about this, but historically, I don't think (all) Barons and Counts activly sought to achieve full independence from the Kingdom. Didn't they see the need for some sort of unity and common defense that IE the Kingdom of England gave?

So if the stupid inbred moron is kicked out, shouldnt there be some sort of motivation to re-create the Kingdom?

There should. And that's one of the things I hope can be adjusted in 1.05. If a kingdom disintegrate, but someone still holds the title they should actively seek to gain the fealty of lesser titles within their kingdom. By peacful means (i.e. vassalisation offers) or by force.

 

[jhhowell]

I know next to nothing about this, but historically, I don't think (all) Barons and Counts activly sought to achieve full independence from the Kingdom. Didn't they see the need for some sort of unity and common defense that IE the Kingdom of England gave?

This is the approach I'd like to see. Get the AI vassals to do something within their Kingdom or Duchy before declaring independence. My simple suggestion would be to have the AI make assassination attempts on their insane/heretic/pneumonia/whatever liege once loyalty drops to a certain point (20%?). Especially the heir, if he happens to be among the vassals.

It would be nice to see real civil wars where a powerful Duke tries to usurp the throne from an incompetent King and make the usurped claim stick during the peace settlement, but that might be asking a bit much of the AI.

 

[Blademonkey]

There should. And that's one of the things I hope can be adjusted in 1.05. If a kingdom disintegrate, but someone still holds the title they should actively seek to gain the fealty of lesser titles within their kingdom. By peacful means (i.e. vassalisation offers) or by force.

Excellent news! Hopefully the evolutionary progress of CK will develop like EU2 did (haven't played Victoria, and still heartbroken over HoI) and we'll see a better game from 1.05.

I have faith in the Lords of Paradox. Those naughty Swedish Lords.

 

[Havard]

Excellent news!

I was just stating my hope for 1.05 in this regard. How's that "news"?

 

[Pyriel]

I seem to remember a game where William, the first king of england, sorta lost the entire country to the heathens of southern spain, the Emirate of Valencia sorta cut up england into a huge , but quarrelsome province far up north.

 

[unmerged(25476)]

I was just stating my hope for 1.05 in this regard. How's that "news"?

I think Blademonkey is under the erroneous impression that the design powers that be and the forum admins are one and the same... but we do hope your opinion carries more weight with Johan than us poor peons customers...

 

[Dunlaing]

Hopefully the evolutionary progress of CK will develop like EU2 did (haven't played Victoria, and still heartbroken over HoI) and we'll see a better game from 1.05.

While I have faith in Paradox and have no doubt that CK will get better, I think the more appropriate comparison should be to EU. I'll be holding out myfull hopes for all that I'd like to see out of CK for CKII.

 

[lucaluca]

There should. And that's one of the things I hope can be adjusted in 1.05. If a kingdom disintegrate, but someone still holds the title they should actively seek to gain the fealty of lesser titles within their kingdom. By peacful means (i.e. vassalisation offers) or by force.

agree; a simple way to solve this problem would be to make AI dukes and Count more willing to pledge allegiance and accept vassalization in the borders of kingdom (defined by title) and to aggregate; in this way someone would be able to usurp or re-create the king title if it diappeared. This continuos disintegration and reconstruction is also very historically accurate for medieval times; CK simulates very well the disintegration, but not well the reconstruction (actually doesn't simulate it).
An event which gives the kingdom title (if missing) to the strongest duke in the Kingdom area may be the start point of the reconstruction process; the other dukes and vassals then could start to pledge allegiance.